Team Romney prays their man is new Reagan

Tim Stanley

TODAY'S presidential debate is being billed as ''make or break'' for Mitt Romney. Right now, Barack Obama has the electoral advantage. The national polls are close, but the President has built a nice lead in swing states such as Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina. Romney desperately needs something big to happen to change the narrative and help him catch up. Presuming that in the next few weeks he won't rescue a cat from a tree or donate his millions to charity, the debates might be Romney's last chance to shine.

His critics say that he's a fool to put so much emphasis on one night of television, that presidential debates haven't made enough of a difference in the past. But they're wrong. History shows that while TV debates don't necessarily decide elections, they can influence them.

Even the debates that only confirm public prejudices towards the candidates can matter. In 2000, when Al Gore squared up against George W. Bush, the audience already suspected that Gore was the awkward policy wonk and Bush was the guy you would rather have a beer with. Bush stammered through his lines, delivering a cheeky smile at the end of each inaccuracy that said, ''I'm just pleased to be here.'' Gore grew frustrated with his opponent's foolishness and started tutting, sighing and rolling his eyes. He left his seat and stood close to Bush and tried to stare him down. The idea was to overpower Bush with physical charisma, but it looked instead like Gore was weighing up whether to hit him or kiss him.

Despite losing on intellectual points, Bush won on charm. The polls didn't shift much afterwards, but the debate clarified the choice in people's minds. In such a close election, personality proved decisive.

Advertisement

Debates can have an even bigger impact when candidates behave in ways that the audience doesn't expect. In 1980, Americans tuned in to watch Ronald Reagan challenge president Jimmy Carter. An intelligent man with a remarkable memory for detail, Carter was predicted to win. Reagan, with a reputation for gaffes, was expected to expose himself as a radical conservative.

Yet it was Carter who made the biggest mistake. In an effort to appear folksy, he told viewers that he had just had ''a discussion'' with his 13-year-old daughter Amy about what the most important issue of the decade might be. He quoted her as saying: ''Nuclear weaponry and the control of nuclear arms.''

People were shocked to find the leader of the free world took policy advice from a teenager; his credibility nosedived. By contrast, Reagan appeared calm, humorous and presidential.

Romney wants his debate to effect a similar shift in perceptions. Rather than a 2000-style debate that confirms what people already think about him and Obama, he wants a 1980-style game-changer. He may get his wish. For a start, the ''expectations game'' is working in his favour. Polls repeatedly show the public expects Obama to win these debates - his reputation as a great speaker precedes him.

That means that Romney only has to land one or two punches to emerge as a winner and transform the way voters see him. And Romney is an experienced fighter whose debate performances have won elections in the past (notably, in the Republican primary in Florida).

The British might know him as the uncouth American who insulted their Olympics, but Romney is a clever and articulate man. He could make President Obama flinch.

Before the 1980 debate, Carter and Reagan were running even. In the week after Carter's snafu, Reagan suddenly built a massive lead that stayed with him until election day. Of course, it wasn't just the debate that won the 1980 election - a poor economy and the Iranian hostage crisis helped.

But in 2012, America also has high unemployment and problems overseas. Team Romney is praying history is repeating itself and that their guy turns out to be Ronald Reagan Mark II.

To that the Democrats would riposte, ''Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan!'' And they're right.

Romney might deliver a performance worthy of Cicero and still lose because not enough people were watching. But that has been his problem throughout. He has often been eloquent and intelligent but never exciting. In an age dominated by image and drama, he wasn't a very good presidential pick.

TELEGRAPH

Dr Tim Stanley is a historian at the University of Oxford, specialising in American history, and author of The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Pat Buchanan.

Subscribe to IT Pro

Editor's Choice

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has bolstered Malcolm Turnbull's ministerial duties, handing him greater responsibility for e-government in a push to expand the use of a single digital identity for Australians.

Data

The new roof that spans Margaret Court arena does more than keep out the weather. Built into the gantries that surround the sliding ceiling are Wi-Fi antennas that beam web access to every ticket holder.